We have a user here who frequently engages in personal and antisemitic attacks against other users. They have very few answers or questions, their only purpose on this site seems to be to spread hate and to insult and troll people.

They for example called a user a "Zionist Jew" and commented that "Jews have high verbal IQs, and are rather talented at deception by omission".

They have called me among other "brainwashed by Jewish propaganda" and a "Filthy shabbos goy".

These are not the first attacks from this user against other users of this site (including me), I'm sure mods can view the deleted comments by them.

After I flagged these comments, the user was suspended for only 7 days. Based on past behavior, I see no reason to think that the user will engage respectfully with users here in the future.

How will moderators ensure that the user does not keep harassing and insulting people and stops spreading bigotry? And is a 7 day suspension typical as a reaction to this sort of behavior, especially given past actions by this user? It seems low even if this were a first time issue, which it isn't.

  • 2
    I wish I knew why Politics.SE, Skeptics.SE and other sites attract these kinds of people. Are they users of Stack Overflow? People who get linked to these Stack Exchange on some extremist web site? People who come across these sites after doing google searches? – Andrew Grimm Dec 17 '17 at 9:37
  • 11
    @AndrewGrimm In my experience most people with these sort of views are just regular folk like you and me. It's only on certain topics (Jews, homeopathy, aliens, whatever) that they become rather unhinged. I know some people who are very sceptical and rational on some topics such as alternative medicine, yet believe wild conspiracy theories as well. – user11249 Dec 17 '17 at 9:52
  • Tim - Just simply report it and let the mods know if you don't like what someone is saying. People have done it to me and mods have cracked a whip over my head a time or two so these people should be treated no different than I have by the law enforcement of the mods on the site to take appropriate actions they deem necessary at their sole discretion. You need not worry and just report and forget about it and report every time and forget about it. Either they will make a quick decision for action to take then or wait for enough people to complain to deem it appropriate on SE politics homie. – The 'Bernie Sanders' Party Dec 18 '17 at 1:27
  • 1
    @WhiteCastle That goes to the larger question of what sort of platform stackexchange wants to be. For the larger network, it's pretty clear: "We're proud to be a large, user-driven space on the internet where name-calling, harassment, and other online nastiness are almost non-existent. It's up to all of us to keep it that way." (be nice policy). – tim Dec 18 '17 at 8:05
  • @tim They are already a community of moderators so I'm just saying let the moderators moderate and you just report accordingly. What's offensive to some people may not be offensive to another so it may be a roll of the dice depending on how the mods decide that behind the scenes. I mean if someone is cursing you profanely on nothing but comments, then what is the non-moderator "Community" going to do other than report? I know for a fact almost non-existent is not by far accurate whereas that sort of content being reported and removed before everyone sees by moderators could be. – The 'Bernie Sanders' Party Dec 19 '17 at 1:18
  • Why you single out "antisemitism" instead of "racism" and nation bashing in general? – Oleg V. Volkov Dec 21 '17 at 16:10
  • 5
    @Oleg Because in the case of this user, it was antisemitism. If it would have been racism, I would have pointed that out (although I think that mods are a little bit better at reacting to racism, so maybe I wouldn't have had to point it out - or maybe I would have). I have seen very little nation bashing here. If there is, it should also be handled appropriately. – tim Dec 21 '17 at 16:18

"Be nice" policy is a cornerstone of the entire Stack Exchange community.

Once you see a post that clearly violates the policy, flag it for Moderator's attention.

If a certain behavior becomes a pattern, and the user does not stop, accompany your flag with a comment pointing to a post where you remember the past user's aggressive posts have occurred. Even if these are deleted, a Mod can see the deleted comments (posts too, but this is not a secret because deleted posts are visible to high-rep users as well).

How will moderators ensure that the user does not keep harassing and insulting people

The Stack Exchange Moderator's dashboard contains an annotation field intended specifically for this very purpose, keeping Moderators' notes about the outstanding facts of user's behavior.

Also, I think it is obvious, but this should be said explicitly: people can have (and they do have) different views. We don't punish or encourage people for their views, we only care that they express it in a civilized manner. We try to help and teach them how to "be nice" and make Stack Exchange a comfortable place for everyone. The moderators should intrude only if a user's behavior is a clear violation of the rules and policies, which distracts others from enjoying their experience with the SE network.

  • Thanks, the option of taking notes on a user is a good point. Hopefully mods will use it so that when this user inevitably violates policy again, the suspension will be appropriate. Because I'm getting a bit tired of being insulted. Adding a comment to the flag is also a good idea, though sadly flag comments are rather limited length-wise. – tim Dec 16 '17 at 18:22
  • 3
    And I agree that different views shouldn't be punished as long as they do not violate policy. But eg 'You're a Jew and Jews are deceptive' is certainly a point of view, but in my opinion it is one that is in violation of the be nice policy, even if it were phrased nicely (it's antisemitic and should thus be covered under bigotry). Fortunately, my experience with removal of racist and antisemitic content has so far mostly - though not always - been positive here. – tim Dec 16 '17 at 18:22
  • 1
    @tim - That sort of speech shouldn't be tolerated. Pointing out that someone is Jewish is broadly acceptable, but ascribing them motivations and making broad-brush claims about them because of that is pure bigotry. – Valorum Dec 17 '17 at 13:54
  • @tim A workaround could be to post and retract several flags, then post a summary flag with "more details in previous (retracted) flags" but at that point the contact form is probably better. – wizzwizz4 Dec 20 '17 at 13:20
  • I really like this answer for the obvious reason: There is no debate if a topic is poisoned/forbidden/suppressed or if a person is a x-ist. Simply point out that the answer is not nice. End of discussion. – Thorsten S. Dec 26 '17 at 18:33
  • 4
    "We don't punish or encourage people for their views, we only care that they express it in a civilized manner." Are you suggesting that there is a civilized way of expressing anti-Semitic views? – David Richerby Sep 8 '18 at 22:34

A seven day suspension is far too lenient for racist and anti-semitic abuse.

Someone who calls another user a

"filthy shabbos goy"

or talks about how Jews are

"...talented at deception by omission"

should have received a dramatically longer suspension. It baffles me that someone who said all of the things listed above (and more, evidently) received such an inconsequential temp-ban from the site's moderators.

  • 2
    This is known as restorative justice. I believe people on the left tend to be in favour of this. – user5904 Dec 23 '17 at 21:42
  • 4
    The fact that you keep putting "anti-Semetic" into quote marks stongly implies that you don't see your actions as inappropriate. – Valorum Dec 23 '17 at 22:10
  • 1
    If that was the case, I would not have apologized. I am putting them into quotes because there is not an unequivocal and absolute definition of the word "anti-Semitism". It is a complex issue. – user5904 Dec 23 '17 at 22:11
  • 1
    @MathematicsStudent1122 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism - "The concept generally posits that much of what is purported to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, is, in fact, tantamount to demonization, and that, together with an alleged international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs" – Valorum Dec 23 '17 at 22:14
  • 6
    @MathematicsStudent1122 - You don't think antisemitism exists? – Valorum Dec 23 '17 at 22:37
  • 3
    You're linking not the anti-Semitism article, but the "new anti-Semitism" article, which a different topic and which argues that criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism are the same thing. Whether or not that is a valid concept is, again, debatable - my view is that it is not. Anti-Semitism, however, independent of Israel and Zionism, certainly does exist. No one denies that. – user5904 Dec 23 '17 at 22:39
  • 6
    There should be no place on this site for personal attacks, but I'm concerned by the idea that certain offensive statements are more equal than others. The notion that a personal attack on <group A> deserves more punishment than a personal attack on <group B> is questionable at best. – Jack Of All Trades 234 Dec 26 '17 at 19:33
  • 8
    @JackOfAllTrades234 - Moral relativism is how anti-semites try to conceal their anti-semitism. They know it's not tolerated so they couch it in clever language that everyone understands but think that because they've not actually come out and used certain words that they're safe. It's the equivalent of nudging the pinball table. Just because you didn't set off the alarm doesn't mean that your actions are acceptable. – Valorum Dec 26 '17 at 19:50
  • 3
    I thought that I was pretty clear in my belief that personal attacks shouldn't be acceptable on this site, whether subtle or overt. My comment was regarding my concern toward the idea that some personal attacks (by virtue of the specific group being attacked) are more 'bad' than others. – Jack Of All Trades 234 Dec 26 '17 at 20:38
  • 1
    @tim - If you conflate multiple kinds of "not being nice", we don't need to unpick which was the more serious. – Valorum Dec 26 '17 at 21:01
  • 7
    @Valorum I think the point is that there should be a distinction between not nice behavior like, say, telling someone to “F off,” and not nice behavior like making ethnic or religious attacks. Someone who does the former may quickly calm down and be a constructive member of the community outside of one argument. Someone who does the latter is spreading hate speech and is not going to act in good faith. – Zach Lipton Dec 26 '17 at 22:55
  • 1
    @Valorum I am on Jack Of All Trades side here. tim makes it IMHO relatively obvious that he believes antisemitism needs special treatment. Let's say I use continously "We must fight against francophobia and harassment" when only harassment/bigotry is mentioned in the rules. Isn't that kind of awfully obvious that I want to have special treatment for francophobia? Also the nudging of the pinball table is a good metaphor: It can be nudged on purpose, it can be accidentally nudged and it could be claimed that it was nudged when it actually wasn't. You could discern every case with 100% accuracy? – Thorsten S. Dec 26 '17 at 23:32
  • 1
    @ThorstenS. - It's pretty rare for someone to make openly anti-semitic comments. When they do, however, they should be dealt with harshly. – Valorum Dec 26 '17 at 23:53
  • 3
    @Wildcard - Scientology is probably a poor example for your strawman since many people (including myself) don't view it as a religion at all, but I can see what you're saying. It's almost like we should...um...be nice to each other? – Valorum Dec 29 '17 at 9:28
  • 3
    @Wildcard - As an atheist with some grasp of history, I can see all religions for what they are. That doesn't change the fact that we should still be nice to each other, especially since this particular poster appears to be referring to jewishness as an ethnic quality rather than a religious one. – Valorum Dec 29 '17 at 10:03

To elaborate on why we start with 7 days:

From my perspective, the purpose of the 7 day suspension is not really about revenge. It's about getting them to stop the toxic behavior.

If your purpose is to send a message, A 7 day suspension will do that. It gives us room to escalate(30 days), and reinforce the message a second time, before we resort to the kind of suspension that's meant to just make them gone(1 year).

  • 4
    Right. But AFAIK, this wasn't the start. It certainly wasn't the first time this user harassed other users, and it wasn't the first time the user used antisemitism in their attacks. I don't know, but I hope that mods didn't just delete their comments last time, but that they already temporarily suspended them then. This isn't about revenge, this is about making sure that stackexchange is a place where this sort of behavior is seen as unacceptable, dealt with and doesn't happen again. – tim Dec 18 '17 at 7:22
  • 3
    I do not feel like that is the case here. I do not feel like a message has been send, at least not an appropriate message. The message is "You can harass and insult people, you can spread antisemitism, you can do this repeatedly, and we will give you the minimal timeout we possibly can". What I'm getting from this is that I and/or others will be insulted and attacked at least two more times before this user is gone for a year. Thanks... I'm honestly severely disappointed in how this whole thing was handled. I hope that you will at least keep an eye on this user from now on... – tim Dec 18 '17 at 7:23
  • 6
    This is a good answer and I fully agree with it. But I also agree with @tim that in practice things don't always seem to work like this. For example, last week flagged a user for not one but two racist rants, and one answer was simply deleted and the other edited. No ban. This was hardly the first time this user posted crap like that. I don't have a behind-the-scenes look of all the considerations that were made, but from my perspective it's a rather surprising decision. – user11249 Dec 18 '17 at 8:03
  • If it's the user I'm thinking of, I think I flagged their behaviour a couple of years ago. Not exactly a first time offender. – Andrew Grimm Dec 19 '17 at 11:25
  • @Carpetsmoker The account you are talking about was suspended, about half an hour after your last flag. – yannis Dec 19 '17 at 13:55
  • @AndrewGrimm The only flag I see in your record against the account that sparked this discussion is one asking us to migrate one of their questions. Perhaps you flagged them on another site? – yannis Dec 19 '17 at 14:00
  • @yannis Yes, one account was. I was talking about a different account though. – user11249 Dec 19 '17 at 14:08
  • @Carpetsmoker Send me a link to the account in TL, so I can take a closer look? – yannis Dec 19 '17 at 14:25
  • 2
    @tim - Agreed. Worse, this sends the message this sort of behaviour isn't seen as a real problem, any more than a user who (for example) occasionally uses a swearword or posts slightly inappropriate links. – Valorum Dec 21 '17 at 18:16
  • 1
    @Valorum That's somewhat of a hyperbolic statement. A user who "occasionally uses a swearword or posts slightly inappropriate links" likely won't even get a warning. If they post swearwords frequently and post moderately inappropriate links, they likely will get a warning before we move to the suspensions. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Dec 21 '17 at 19:17
  • 2
    @SamIam - Sorry, but I'm struggling to see why someone who posts hate-speech merits a suspension, period, let alone one that sends such a pitiful message. – Valorum Dec 21 '17 at 19:24
  • @Valorum - Should they not be suspended at all? – Obie 2.0 Dec 29 '17 at 22:11
  • @Obie2.0 - It's a tough one. It probably would have been better for the mods to just tough it out and say that it wasn't a big deal and that they'd dealt with it privately than to give out such a ridiculous suspension. Note that the offending commenter has returned with a faux (and frankly smug) apology, clearly having learned nothing. – Valorum Dec 29 '17 at 22:18
  • @Valorum - They almost certainly will learn nothing if they aren't suspended at all. – Obie 2.0 Dec 29 '17 at 22:20
  • @Obie2.0 - Converting a bigot is something that takes time, energy and patience. On a site like this, that sort of individual becomes a vampire, sucking energy away from more productive activities (such as asking and answering questions) and just generally ends up making the site an unpleasant place to be. Better to send a strong message and make it clear that their actions aren't tolerated than a weak message that'll just end up with them (inevitably) making the same unpleasant statements in a week or a month. – Valorum Dec 29 '17 at 22:25

Personally, I think the answer should be an unequivocal "no". No, we do not tolerate harassment or antisemitism.

I think that my opinion is also backed up by the network-wide Be Nice Policy:

We're proud to be a large, user-driven space on the internet where name-calling, harassment, and other online nastiness are almost non-existent. It's up to all of us to keep it that way.

It also specifically covers bigotry:

Bigotry of any kind. Language likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. will not be tolerated. At all. (Those are just a few examples; when in doubt, just don't.)

I understand that it might feel difficult to handle this at a site which is inherently political. But I also think that antisemitism and harassment should still not be tolerated.

I think that a 7 day suspension for repeated harassment and antisemitism comes very close to tolerating this behavior, and I hope that moderators will have more of an eye on it in the future. My hope is that moderators will:

  • Do more on a first violation than simply remove the harassing or antisemitic post in question. This might be a month or year ban depending on the offense. We are not talking about somewhat rude posts here, or about repeated off-topic posts, but personal attacks and antisemitism. These seem like the worst possible violations of policy.
  • Note down past offenses and take them into account when this behavior repeats.

I understand if no further action is taken in this specific case - it seems like it would set a bad precedent - but I do hope that there will be an internal follow-up (that is under the assumption that there is agreement that something went wrong in this case; which I think is clear that it did). Specifically:

  • Investigate this specific case and see if it was handled according to internal policy
  • Investigate how it could happen that such an action was taken (if it was indeed incorrect)
  • Consider what steps could be taken that it does not repeat itself

As per meta, I will use the contact form next time, in addition to flagging.

  • 4
    Typically, we try to warn first. When I first noticed the user's comments back in August, I did contact them privately to let them know their behaviour is unacceptable. This also created a permanent note on their account. However, obviously, my warning fell on deaf ears. Looking back at the comments I realize that this was a case where I should have skipped the typical warning, and go straight to a suspension. Please accept my apology for not doing so. I did hope the warning would be enough, but in retrospect, I don't think it's surprising that it wasn't. – yannis Dec 19 '17 at 11:11
  • 1
    @yannis Thanks, apology accepted. I didn't note the comments down back then, but I remember that I changed my profile afterwards to remove identifying information because they felt personal and threatening. Given the note on the account, I think it wasn't just you who was too lenient back then, but that the 7 day suspension now was also too lenient. Either way, let's hope that the user actually does change their behavior now, or that appropriate steps are taken next time in case they don't. – tim Dec 19 '17 at 18:38
  • I downvoted it because while it can be correctly deduced that "Be nice" automatically prohibits antisemitism, your answer sounds too much that antisemitism needs special treatment and your help to detect such issues (But I also feel like the moderators here may not be equipped to handle such issues). – Thorsten S. Dec 26 '17 at 18:41
  • @ThorstenS. Given how lenient moderators have been regarding harassment and bigotry when it relates to antisemitism, I think that they do need help with this issue. The same is likely true for other topics such as racism, although I have personally made somewhat better experiences here regarding that. – tim Dec 26 '17 at 19:12
  • 2
    @ThorstenS. And I feel like moderators are not equiepped to handle it because they haven't handled it in the past; that's the whole point of this question. Antisemitic answers where left standing even after flagging, antisemitic harassment was removed without even temporarily banning the user, etc. I hope that my question here will help moderators realize that there is a problem, and that my answer might help them to start fixing it. Because the way it was handled in the past is in clear violation of the spirit of stackexchange. – tim Dec 26 '17 at 19:13
  • @ThorstenS. But I removed that part, because it doesn't add much value to my answer. My main point there was that the official recommendation is to use the contact form in addition to flagging. – tim Dec 26 '17 at 19:24
  • 1
    I admit I do not like your tone because you are suggesting that mainly you exactly know what antisemitism is and how to spot it, that you know what actions are appropiate and that antisemitism tops everything (worst possible violation). The moderators have no clue and need your help. Remember, the moderators can contact persons in private so nobody sees they are working on a resolution. They are also not 24/7 available. I will also tell you from experience that insert minory group will tell everyone at once that violations against them are at least punished. Sorry to put it bluntly. – Thorsten S. Dec 26 '17 at 19:40
  • 1
    @ThorstenS. My point was that harassment and bigotry are on another level than eg plagiarism. The larger stackexchange network seems to see it the same way. From the harassment link: "We're proud to be a large, user-driven space on the internet where name-calling, harassment, and other online nastiness are almost non-existent. It's up to all of us to keep it that way." If you think that a stern talking to is the correct response to repeated harassment and bigotry, that is your opinion, but I would prefer if politics.SE follows the policy of the larger network and doesn't accept it. – tim Dec 26 '17 at 20:01
  • Ignoratio elenchi or missing the point, you are insinuating a position which is not proposed. The policy clearly calls out harassment, but you are using "antisemitism and harassment" (so antisemitism is not harassment?!). It sounds that you are trying to insert a double-standard, so I am clearing that up: Person A makes a derogatory and highly offensive statement B over person C here. Statement B stays constant for different A or C. So should be the reaction and the punishment exactly the same independent of who A or C is, yes or no? – Thorsten S. Dec 26 '17 at 20:29
  • 1
    @ThorstenS. Depending on your definition, I guess antisemitism can be harassment. But I would generally associate personal attacks with harassment. You could eg phrase an antisemitic - or any other bigoted - notion nicely or academic sounding, some might then not consider that to be harassment. Either way, stackexchange considers them equally unacceptable (the harassment page I linked to mentions the be nice policy, which covers bigotry, which includes antisemitism). – tim Dec 26 '17 at 20:50
  • 1
    @ThorstenS. And I think that context is important. If C changes, the meaning of the sentence changes. I think that if the person had said that I were brainwashed by leftist propaganda, the issue would be different. It would still be a personal attack, and thus unacceptable though. But take this as an example. If you change C here, it just becomes meaningless. But as-is, it is antisemitic and covered by the be nice policy. – tim Dec 26 '17 at 20:51
  • Wrong. I can change the meaning into something equivalent without even breaking a sweat. while liberals support racial policies in the USA (affirmative action), they work for the opposite in Europe and the USA by supporting massive [...] immigration into Europe and promoting white women dating Africans, Arabs bla bla bla. Could be copied right from a right-wing Trump supporter site targeting ostensible left goals while being positive to Israel. What now? Also unbearable? I suspect you are striving for a double standard and suppress criticism you don't like as antisemitic. – Thorsten S. Dec 26 '17 at 22:49
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Thorsten S. Dec 26 '17 at 23:17
  • 1
    @ThorstenS. If you think the quotes in question are "criticism [I] don't like" instead of antisemitism, I don't think that there is anything left to talk about. I would suggest you read up on what antisemitism is and what it has historically lead to. – tim Dec 26 '17 at 23:32
  • 2
    I think you're reading far too much in to this @ThorstenS. The fact of the matter is that the problematic behaviour and unsatisfactory mod actions were about anti-Semitism, so the question (and answer) focuses on that. This doesn't mean that it is somehow "special" compared to racism against people of colour, or anti-Gay bigotry, or any number of other problematic behaviours, but that simply wasn't what was encountered in this specific case. – user11249 Dec 27 '17 at 0:03

I am the user this post is referring to. My ban has now ended. Allow me to give my perspective.

For one, I regret that I used personal attacks in some of my discussions. Some topics discussed on this website are controversial, and sometimes discussions get heated. Admittedly, this does not excuse my actions. I apologize that some of my discussions got out of hand, but some context certainly needs to be provided.

Your quotations are extremely selective. For instance, in one of our discussions, you were trivializing the deaths and horrid mistreatment of North Koreans by the North Korean regime. Your comment implied that Jewish suffering under the Nazis was somehow "worse" than the suffering of the North Korean people, as though somehow you have the right to make such moral judgements. I would urge you to study the sheer brutality of the North Korean regime. Perhaps this and this are worth reading. Again, it is not something that you ought to trivialize, and a person of Korean ethnicity may well get offended by such comments, just as a Jew might get offended by Holocaust denial/trivialization, or an Armenian might get offended by Armenian genocide denial. This was what motivated my "anti-Semetic" response. Contrary to what your post suggests, my comments did not come out of the blue.

You write that we should not tolerate "personal attacks" and "anti-Semitism" here. I agree that personal attacks should not be tolerated. I have been suspended for a week because of my comments, and I concede that this punishment was deserved. However, we need to be careful with this whole "anti-Semitism" stuff.

I agree that anti-Semitism should not tolerated insofar as users should not be targeted because of their ethnicity (it is important to note that "Zionist" and "Jew" are not synonyms; criticizing the political ideology of Zionism should certainly be allowed). However, the problem here is that what does and does not constitute anti-Semitism is a rather debatable topic. For instance, if we cite scholars such as Kevin MacDonald, who has explored the exceedingly controversial topic of the role of evolutionary psychology in Jewish ethnocentrism, in one of our answers, would that constitute anti-Semitism? Can we talk about the reality of ethnic differences in IQ, which is true? Jews do, on average, have higher verbal IQs than non-Jews. And there is scholarly evidence (namely, by the aforementioned scholar Kevin MacDonald, as well as some Jewish scholars like Israel Shahak) that Jews tend to act in their collective interest as a distinct ethnoreligious group (as opposed to acting in the interest of the country in which they reside). Is this racism? Is this anti-Semitism? I mean, it is not explicitly hateful. This is simply an empirical observation. Where do we draw the line? Or do we simply have a blanket policy that any and all criticism of the Jewish people is unacceptable, thereby implicitly supporting the view that the Jewish people are a perfect people incapable of doing wrong? Your beliefs, Tim, are predicated on the a priori assumption that beliefs commonly regarded as anti-Semitic are necessarily wrong, and therefore we should not even discuss them at all (they are a "thoughtcrime"). I do not believe this is consistent with the goal of having an open website in which people of various viewpoints are allowed to participate. If you only want one set of ideas or political views to be expressed here, then this needs to be made explicitly clear. Perhaps change the name from "politics.stackexchange" to "leftwing.stackexchange".

To reiterate: although we should remain opposed to personal attacks and blatant racial hatred (and, again, I apologize for my excesses), we need to be careful not to censor people with different views. The smart, college educated folk (who principally constitute this site's user base) remain insulated in a sort of left/centre-left bubble. The reality is that right-wing views, including hard-right views like mine, are not fringe or rare. Among the common people, they are the norm. You cannot pretend they don't exist and then act shocked when Brexit happens and Trump is elected.

Last point: if we ban anti-Semitism from this website, then surely we should also ban anti-white bigotry as well? This would include perpetuating the demonization of white men, as is rather common nowadays in modern, leftist intellectual circles. Again, let's be consistent here.

  • 14
    The issue with your content is that you are casting aspersions (however 'empirical' you think they are) on a people, rather than on politics/an idea. A phrase like "Jews have high verbal IQs, and are rather talented at deception by omission" cannot be interpreted in a way that does not intended to cast aspersions on Jewish people. Not only is the first part a stereotype, it's paired with the second part which calls them not only liars, but superior liars due to their racial inheritance. It appears you have a deep-seated bias toward Jews and are simply saying "sorry I got caught" here. – TylerH Dec 29 '17 at 22:15
  • 2
    You’ve used anti-Semitic slurs in your arguments. I find it hard to believe that you imagine people could believe that you believe anti-Semitism exists, or at least that you understand in anything like the common sense. – Obie 2.0 Dec 29 '17 at 22:51
  • 7
    To be honest, I liked you more when you were saying that “the term ‘alt-right’ is almost a euphemism to legitimize an extreme right-wing ideology which only a few years ago would have been entirely outside the bounds of reasonable political discourse” and that “many proponents harbour explicitly anti-Semetic and racist views.” It’s certainly quite a 180 for you to pivot from that to promulgating the views of discredited race theorists and calling people “goys” (really? and you can’t even get the plural right; most anti-Semitic people manage at least that) but I suppose it can happen. – Obie 2.0 Dec 29 '17 at 22:59
  • 1
    @Obie2.0 That's true. The alt-right is extreme right wing, and a few years ago was entirely outside of mainstream US political discourse. That's not inconsistent with the views I've expressed here. – user5904 Dec 29 '17 at 23:25
  • 2
    Sadly, the rest of what I said is also true. – Obie 2.0 Dec 29 '17 at 23:41
  • 7
    @TylerH - Not even "Sorry, I got caught", more "I'm sorry that my views, which actually represent the majority of people, have cause your precious feelings to be offended" – Valorum Dec 30 '17 at 18:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .